I Know That God Does Not Exist

Good example. The premise is false so the conclusion is suspect - but the reasoning is sound.

No, the word has meaning. Suppose I said, "All circles have three sides. Therefore, my dog is a coffee table." That would be irrational because there is no logical connection between the premise and the conlusion. But if I said, "If a dog is a wooden object with four legs, then my dog is a coffee table," that is logically sound, even if the conclusion is absurd.

Nobody is drawing conclusions contrary to the evidence. We're not talking about belief.

Because a lot of people like you and Faith are very sure about things that are wrong. You seriously don't know the difference between all ideas and one idea? A lot of them. Do some homework.

Point out the contradiction.Edited by ringo, : No reason given.

No you didn't. You just said, "You contradict yourself." Point out the contradiction.

That's cherry-picking. Show that the idea of god is inherently irrational. That's what you want to believe - but you can't seem to back it up rationally. I don't think that's true - but even if it was, it's irrelevant. You're the one making a positive claim - that the idea of God is irrational. You're the one who has to back up that claim. You have not done so. I am still waiting for you to fill in those blanks. Why can't you do it? Start by giving us one logical error in the idea of God.

I'm not necessarily concluding anything. I'm questioning your conclusions. I'm not convinced that the idea of God is irrational. It's interesting that your arguments against the idea are pretty much irrational.

No it doesn't.I said that it is possible to demonstrate that something doesn't exist - but it doesn't work in every case.

How would it even be possible to get the whole scientific community to share the same bias?

Well of course not. They'd have to be insane, feeble-minded, etc. to dispute the ToE. But that's because of evidence, not bias. The reason everybody accepts that the world is round is because of evidence, not bias.

I'm asking how it would be possible for thousands of people with different religious beliefs, different cultural backgrounds and different languages to have exactly the same biases. That would require one immense conspiracy. And yet you, without a frigging clue about the evidence involved, manages to come up with "the right answer".

Read the post you're replying to.I'm not trying to prove any case. I'm trying to get you to explain yours. Show your work. Show us why the idea of God is inherently irrational. List the logical errors.

Yes, cherry-picking. You're picking one idea of a thunderbolt-throwing god from a vast array of ideas about God. You're the one who's confused. We're not talking about what I mean by a deity. We're talking about what everybody means by a deity. You shoot down one tiny idea about one tiny god and you think you've defeated every possible idea about God. That's like swatting a mosquito and claiming you've defeated the Soviet Air Force. Do you understand what an idea is? That's exactly the point. There is nothing "special" about any idea of God. There is no one idea of God that you can shoot down and call the whole idea of God irrational.If you want to show that The Idea of God is irrational, you have to account for every idea of God that there ever was.

I'm glad you see how absurd that idea is but it would have to be a conspiracy. How else would thousands of people with different backgrounds all come up with exactly the same biases?